Michigan House Bill HR0048

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/25
• Refer: 3/19/25

Caption

A resolution to direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives to promptly present to the Governor nine bills that were passed by both houses of the Legislature and ordered enrolled in December 2024.

Summary

House Resolution 48 is a nonbinding resolution directing the Clerk of the Michigan House of Representatives to promptly present to the Governor nine bills that had already passed both chambers of the Legislature and were ordered enrolled in December 2024. The resolution frames the issue as a constitutional duty, citing the Michigan Constitution’s requirement that every bill passed by the Legislature be presented to the Governor before becoming law and that the Governor then have 14 days to consider it. The resolution recounts that the House Speaker and Clerk had not presented the nine bills, prompting the Senate and Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks to file suit. It also references a February 27, 2025 Court of Claims decision that interpreted the constitutional presentation requirement as mandatory and applicable to the nine bills in the House’s possession. HR 48 is presented as a response to that ruling and as a directive for compliance with the court’s interpretation of the Constitution.

Impact

HR 48 does not itself change substantive state law; rather, it seeks to compel administrative action by the House Clerk under existing constitutional procedures. Its practical effect would be to move nine enrolled bills from legislative custody to gubernatorial review, thereby triggering the constitutional 14-day presentment and veto/approval timeline. The resolution is aimed at the internal operations of the House and the handling of enrolled legislation, with implications for separation of powers and compliance with Article IV, Section 33 of the Michigan Constitution.

Sentiment

The sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly supportive of prompt presentment and compliance with the Court of Claims decision. Its sponsors characterize the withholding of the bills as unconstitutional and inconsistent with the oath of office taken by House officers. The broader context suggests a partisan divide: Democratic members and Senate leadership are aligned behind immediate presentment, while House Republican leadership is described in the resolution as resisting or limiting presentment through House Resolution 41.

Contention

The central point of contention is whether the House Clerk and Speaker have discretion to withhold enrolled bills from the Governor after passage by both chambers. Supporters of HR 48 argue that the Michigan Constitution leaves no room for exceptions and that the Court of Claims has already resolved the issue in favor of mandatory presentment. Opponents, identified in the resolution as Speaker Matt Hall and the House Republican Caucus, are portrayed as trying to limit presentment to certain bills and as disregarding both the court ruling and the constitutional text. The dispute is therefore both legal and institutional, involving constitutional interpretation, compliance with a court order, and control over the legislative process.